To quote JFK, “Let us never negotiate out of fear…

To quote JFK, “Let us never negotiate out of fear… October 10, 2012

but let us never fear to negotiate.”

It is not always and everywhere Munich 1938. Everybody is not always and everywhere Hitler. We fell for the ‘AIEEEEE!!! WMDS!!! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!” thing once. Don’t fall for it again. Let’s be smart before we are rashly bellicose.

"Id rather not taint the concept of love and empathy with empty platitudes."

Noodling Leviticus with a Reader
"> Today I'm an atheist, and feel so incredibly relieved that this corrupt mendacious abusive ..."

Our Myth, Their Lie
"If you're talking about my point "3" above, I would agree - that's where most ..."

Another heroic saint in the Church ..."
""I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Archbishop Flynn was unchaste, yet his indifference toward victims ..."

Our Myth, Their Lie

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ivan_the_mad

    Not to mention, that you know, pre-emptive war is always and everywhere intrinsically evil (see CotCC 2307-2309).

  • Funny, I always thought I saw a bit of commonality between you and Pat Buchanan. Figured you’d electronically climb along side my head if I mentioned it before. The more I read Pat the more I find myself agreeing with him more and with my old “thing that used to be conservative” less.

  • Blog Goliard

    Of course the Iranians have a nuclear weapons program.

    Of course negotiation should be our preferred method of dealing with this…and, of course, endless negotiation is an ideal stalling tactic for the Iranians.

    Of course it is unthinkable that Iran would lob nuclear missiles at Israel…and, of course, Iran has fought its wars against Israel and the West by proxy for over 30 years now, in part to escape direct retaliation, so why wouldn’t they roll the dice by letting a bomb slip into Hezbollah’s hands? Would Israel really dare to obliterate Tehran in the wake of a small nuclear detonation in downtown Tel Aviv that Iran–however unbelievably–disavowed?

    It is a true dilemma. Anyone who spots an easy way out (whether it’s “they’re not really making nuclear bombs” on one side or “all it would take is a short bombing campaign to ruin their program”) is fooling themselves.

    • I liked that take on things. The one side that seems to be itching for a military solution definitely makes me feel uneasy. But I also don’t like the idea of saying that if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, allows them to fall into the hands of terrorists, and they do detonate in a city and kill thousands, then I will concede I was wrong. It isn’t an easy fix, that’s for sure.

    • But we must be honest and forthright.

      One actor in this drama is a member of the non-proliferation pact and is pursuing a nuclear program of some sort, in accord with its obligations, although it was not meeting those obligations almost a decade ago.

      One actor refused to enjoin the treaty, and is in possession of full-on nuclear weapons and also the means to deliver them throughout its region.

      A third actor is also a member of the treaty, was openly discussing violating its obligations under the treaty at the same time Actor 1 was not fulfilling its obligations, and further has a policy of providing no aid or technological support to non-treaty members who pursue any sort of nuclear program. This actor also provides a huge amount of financial and technical support to Actor 2 (the one with nukes who refused to join the treaty, in case this is all getting convoluted.)

      I agree there is a huge problem. I don’t see how it’s Persia though.

      • I admit I am far less frightened by such weapons in the hands of a reasonably stable millenia old nation of peoples than the prospect of those same weapons in the hands of a bunch of functionally literate revolutionaries with a God-complex.

    • Ted Seeber

      I have an easy way out. Stop importing oil from them and let people on the other side of the world work out their own problems without interference from us.

  • Andy

    The Iranian Nuclear issue is not an easy fix, I agree. I have come to the conclusion though that we cannot continue to the be the world cop. It is far to easy for the rest of the world to wait for the US to flex its military muscles to solve problems. The belligerent stance by one side or the other different cases scares me almost as much as Iranians having nuclear weapons.
    Negotiations must begin from a place of respect and trust. The problem we face now is a lack of both on all sides and I do not know how to create that trust. The oft-times claim that it is the end of all we hold dear if event X happens leads to loss of respect, as it often predicated on the other side is so different then we are. The response from those who would perpetrate event X becomes one of lack of trust and the race to the end is on.
    I do know that right now neither party or candidate has said anything that gives me hope that they understand the gravity of the situation.

  • Ghosty

    I think we just need to come to terms with the eventual reality of a nuclear-armed Iran and start laying the ground work for peaceful coexistence. We are fast approaching the time when any nation that wants nuclear weapons will be able to develop them, no sense denying this fact. It only makes sense that Iran would want nuclear weapons, and they will have the means to get them if they don’t already. There is no stopping this in the long run.

    The question is this: do we want a nuclear Iran that is isolated and angry, with nothing to lose, or do we want a nuclear Iran that is bound to the West through trade agreements and mutual interest? I know which option seems safer, saner, and more optimistic to me.

    Peace and God bless!